Only the Dog Knows for Sure

Well, in all reality, the kid knows too but his response would have to be weighed in light of your reaction to the situation and subsequent question...which I imagine would be asked upon the freezing-over of hell. The following argument assumes that the kid is incapable of answering any legitimate line of questioning involving the dog's involvement in this scandalous photograph.

Here is an unequivocal example of circumstantial evidence. Is the imagery graphic? Yes! Is the evidence compelling? Yes! Do you think the kid stuck his finger in the dog's butt? Damn, it sure looks like he did! Does the evidence automatically convict the accused? No!

Having thus far read three chapters into Al Gore's "Assault on Reason", I find myself asking the question "Why does this sound so familiar to 'Fahrenheit 911'?" The answer involves circumstantial evidence. I don't consider myself a supporter of George Bush, nor do I feel a bond with the average voter registered as a Republican. I consider what I see and weigh it against what I know... The result is either a 'YES, I agree' or a 'NO, I disagree'.

Watching Michael Moore's movie and listening to (Will Patton reading) Al Gore's book, I realized that I felt like I was being implored to believe in things that were supported primarily by untenable yet unquestionable grounds. Given the common approach to accusation and judgment by both Michael and Al, I am compelled to believe that boy pictured above was not only guilty of indecent acts with an animal, but also guilty of crimes against humanity in that he disrespected the beast's right to privacy and violated its inalienable rights to, at the very least, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of this, of course, is based on evidence that 'proves' the boy committed the act which is so evidently illustrated.